User talk:Eusebius/Archives/Promotions/March 2009

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grenoble - ancien tribunal - armoiries.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good sharpness --Pudelek 11:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grenoble - cathédrale - grandes orgues.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK considering the difficult light --Mbdortmund 14:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Embouchure profil.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Looks good. --Coyau 16:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chartres - cathédrale - rosace nord.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very nice --Böhringer 21:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nantes - château - toitures du Grand Gouvernement.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments This is not a very exciting or flashy image, but it is crisp, and you picked a good time of day and shooting angle to capture this subject. --Notyourbroom 23:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Philopappos Monument.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support This pictures shows it more clear --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Monument de Philopappos crop.jpg: +1
2. Memorial Filopappou.JPG: 0
=>
File:Monument de Philopappos crop.jpg: Promoted.
File:Memorial Filopappou.JPG: Declined.

--Eusebius (talk) 09:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grenoble - Ange grenette.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Quality pic. Lycaon 22:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Martine Pouchain.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

• I think it would be more valuable as a cropped version, which can be used as a portrait photo on say an infobox in an article. Landscape orientation is just wierd. Still keep the original, but make a crop as well as that. Jolly Janner (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done portrait crop. --Eusebius (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Info Geotag added. --Eusebius (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Come on, it's an easy one... Personality VI candidates seem to be less sexy than bugs and flies... ;-) --Eusebius (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Well, it's the best (and only) photo we have of her, but only one project even has an article on her (and that's a stub). Maybe it's just a case of systemic bias, I don't know. Rocket000(talk) 17:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

  Actually the existence of an (unchallenged) article on the subject is usually considered enough to justify the scope (it has been taken in the past as sufficient for personalities, there's a discussion somewhere in the talk page archive). The French article passes the "inclusion criteria" of the French Wikipedia and should not be nominated for deletion, according to me. Note that it's not my picture here, I'm not pushing it, I truly think there is no pb. --Eusebius (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

  Ok, that's why I didn't oppose. Although, use is usually a good indicator of it's value. I have been away for awhile so I'm not all that confident with my grasp of "value" here to vote either way. Rocket000(talk) 18:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

  Well, I'd write something more about her - if only I could find some more information. You won't even find her birth date on her web site ;) -- g91 (blubb?) 16:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

  We're talking about the quality of the encyclopaedia articles here, not about their relevance as we probably should (btw, I wouldn't put my birth date on my own website, even if I was worth an article, it's a personal choice, and even more personal for a woman :-) --Eusebius (talk) 09:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

  Ok. There might be more information soon since one of her books is nominated for the Prix des lycéens allemands (Price of the German High school students) and might have a good chance to win (I attended a jury once) in the final round which will take place in two days... -- g91 (blubb?) 22:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Surely a borderline case concerning Wikimedia project relevance, but it just makes it over my value bar. Illustrates the subject well, other criteria met. So I will be a little bold and support this one. --Slaunger (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Brass instrument mouthpiece.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

---

Scope changed from Trumpet mouthpiece to Brass instrument mouthpiece --Eusebius (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

 Support This image is much more detailed; although there are differences between trumpet and other brass mouthpieces, they all have come with the same principles. Pbroks13 (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Embouchure profil.jpg: 0
2. Trumpet mouthpiece scheme.svg: +1 
=>
File:Embouchure profil.jpg: Declined.
File:Trumpet mouthpiece scheme.svg: Promoted.

--Eusebius (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Featured image

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Cathédrale de Nantes - nef.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cathédrale de Nantes - nef.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Pbroks13 (talk) 06:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grenoble - le Blount.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Crooked grain, straight sign. -- carol 06:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chartres - cathédrale - annonciation.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments This looks good enough for a promotion to me and gets my weak  Support. However, I feel like the perspective is still very slightly off, even with your digital correction. Scrolling from the bottom of the image to the top, the sides of the window appear to pinch inward slightly. This is really not my area of expertise, though. I'll leave it to you whether it needs further correction, but I wanted to bring the issue to your (and other editors') attention. --Notyourbroom 16:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Honestly I'm unable to do better. I think that with the modifications I've done, I've already made the walls slightly more rectilign (if not perfectly vertical) than they actually are. --Eusebius 18:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Chelmon rostratus (Copperband butterflyfish).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support for lighting, sharpness and feeding position. Lycaon (talk) 08:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support As per Lycaon --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Best one, fulfills criteria. --Slaunger (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Chelmon rostratus Luc Viatour.jpg: +1
2. Seattle Aquarium, 1.JPG: +3
3. Sea Wonderful.jpg: 0
=>
File:Chelmon rostratus Luc Viatour.jpg: Declined.
File:Seattle Aquarium, 1.JPG: Promoted.
File:Sea Wonderful.jpg: Declined.

--Eusebius (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Cugnot's fardier.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Info I think it is the only picture we have of the original vehicle (it's the second one built by Cugnot, the first one was a reduced-size model). --Eusebius (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Meets all criteria. Never knew about that vehicle before. Highly interesting. --Slaunger (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Slaunger (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)